HomeMy WebLinkAboutSUMMERHILL PUD PRELIMINARY - 41 93 - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSIq
City of Fort Collins
NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING
Meeting
fnr
Attendees: Please sign this sheet. The information will be used to
update the project mailing list and confirm attendance at neighborhood
meetings. Contact the Planning Department (221-6750) if you wish to
receive minutes of this meeting.
Did You Receive
Written Notification
of this meeting?
Correct
Address.
Name Address Zip
Yes
No
Yes
No
� r �
IA
�L Poe 6
r c
C��'�SGf� /✓-C
1-
1
knqa XcAmaeou
X
iC
13. Question: The plan we are looking at tonight, is this
conceptual or final?
Answer: This plan is conceptual but reflects, generally, the
site layout and amount of landscaping to be provided.
14. Comment: We have a concern about the amount and type of
street and parking lot lighting (height, intensity, light
source type, etc.) that is proposed.
Response: Standard City street lights will be installed on
Underhill Drive and our own light fixtures will be installed
on the private streets internal to the project.
15. Comment: I want to reinforce our concern about the project
lighting and wanting to assure "controlled light pollution".
16. Comment: There are very significant concerns about the
traffic impacts on an already congested street network in the
area, i.e. Prospect, Shields, etc.
17. Comment: Generally, this looks like a better project than was
previously approved.
18. Comment: This appears to be a lot of density in an area that
already has traffic congestion problems.
19. Comment: The compilation of dense development wanting to
occur in this area seems to be a problem.
20. Question: Are there considerations for pedestrian circulation
in the development?
Answer: Yes, there are.
21. Question: How close is the closest wall of the southern
buildings to the New Mercer Canal?
Answer: The distance is approximately 40 to 50 feet:
22. Comment: I would like you to physically, on -site, look at the
easement and access into the existing single family residence
at the southeast corner of the development.
23. Question: Will a traffic study be required and how will
numbers be generated until West Prospect road is opened again?
Answer: A traffic study will be required with a formal
submittal and number generations do not come solely from
actual counts on the streets. Projections are made based on
existing and proposed development in the area.
24. Comment: There appears to be an inaccuracy of the location of
the New Mercer Canal on this conceptual plan.
3. Comment: The cul-de-sac located so close to the existing
single family residence seems to be very intrusive to that
property.
4. Question: Is the cul-de-sac a City requirement?
Answer: Yes, the City Engineering Department has said that
the cul-de-sac will be required for public and emergency
access and turnaround.
5. Comment: Westbridge Drive presently is effectively a single
lane street due to the on -street parking that occurs.
6. Comment: Westbridge Drive does not look like it will provide
good ingress -egress to the development.
7. Question: Is the angled intersection from,Westbridge Drive
into this development acceptable to the City?
Answer: The proposed access is actually a 90 degree turn and
is acceptable to the City.
S. Comment: The previously approved plan provided for a 6' high
wood fence on the west property line for buffering from the
properties to the west.
9. Question: Will these building setbacks be consistent with
what was previously approved?
Answer: Yes, they will.
10. Comment: There are many questions and concerns about the
possible access point into the City's natural area/open space
south of the New Mercer Canal.
* Is this the proper location?
* What will be the impacts on the wetlands?
* Maybe there is a better access location.
11. Comment: I think your plan would be better if the cul-de-sac
on the east side of the development were not included. Please
investigate the need, or lack of need, for this cul-de-sac
with the Poudre Fire Authority and City Engineering.
12. Question: What do the rear elevations of the buildings look
like? What will•the overall height of the buildings be?
Answer: The buildings will be approximately 22' high. The
appearance will be somewhat like the existing 5-plex building
in Phase 1 of the Underhill P.U.D., on the west side of
Underhill Drive.
Commu_ _y Planning and Environmental . .Mces
Planning Department
City of Fort Collins
Date:
Applicant:
City Planner:
Location:
Neighborhood Information Meeting
for
SUMMERHILL P.U.D.
June 30, 1993
Mel Price
c/o Cityscape
3555 Stanford
Fort collins,
Steve Olt
i
Urban Design
Road, Suite 105
CO. 80525
Plymouth Congregational Church
The Summerhill P.U.D. is a 7.36 acre site that is planned for 62
multi -family residential dwelling units. This property was approved
by the Planning and Zoning Board for in excess of 80 dwelling units
in 1982. It is bordered by West Prospect Road to the north, the
Bridges P.U.D. (multi -family residential) to the east, City of Fort
Collins natural area to the south, and Sonoran View Estates (single
family residential) to the west.
The purpose of this meeting was to introduce a potential applicant
for a development proposal to neighbors and potentially affected
interests in the area. There were 7 participants present in
addition to the potential applicant, his representatives, and the
City planner.
The following questions and concerns were expressed at this
meeting:
1. Comment: We are the owners of the existing single family
residence and property adjacent to the Bridges P.U.D. (at the
southeast corner of this proposal) and do not see how your
plan intends to provide access to this property.
2. Question: How much traffic do you anticipate on the cul-de-
sac (south end of Westbridge Drive) on the east side of the
project?
Answer: Tne primary access to this development will be
directly from West Prospect Road on Underhill Drive, at the
northwest corner of the site.
281 North College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750
urban design, inc.
Policy 75. Residential areas should provide a mix of housing densities.
Policy 78. Residential development should be directed into areas which
reinforce the phasing plan in the urban growth area.
Policy 80. Higher density residential uses should locate:
a. Near the core area, regional, community shopping
centers, CSU main campus, or the hospital;
b. Within close proximity to community or neighborhood
park facilities;
C. Where water and sewer facilities can be adequately
provided;
d. Within easy access to major employment centers; and
e. With access to public transportation.
Construction at Summerhill is expected to begin in the fall of 1993, and may continue
through 1996.
LAM@@P(A�
urban design, inc.
- . Create an area of affordable housing that is well planned, aesthetically pleasing,
and integrates well with adjacent land uses; particularly traffic generated by
more intensive uses. .
II. While recognizing traditional traffic management needs, create a circulation system
that - where practical - makes bike and pedestrian access between uses convenient.
Include design characteristics - such as shared entry streets and distinct
landscape and architectural treatment - which lend clarity and identity to
residential neighborhoods.
Provide neighborhood street systems that promote neighborhood integrity, by
restricting extraneous motorized traffic from low density residential areas.
Orient units around a central circulation system, minimizing traffic congestion
on neighboring streets and arterials.
Plan a viable, integrated pedestrian system for the site, including safe, direct
pedestrian and bike access from residential to the city open space adjacent to
the property.
Ill. Provide land use transitions and creative relationships between uses.
Protect defined neighborhood areas from the intrusion of activities which may
have negative impacts upon residents; particularly traffic generated by more
intensive uses.
Plan the site as a transitional use between the existing high density Bridges
PUD and low density residential areas, while avoiding conflicts - particularly in
terms of traffic circulation - with other development areas.
The Summerhill PUD is also consistent with applicable Land Use Policies, including:
Policy 3. The City shall promote:
a. Maximum utilization of land within the city;
d. The location of residential development which is close to
employment, recreation, and shopping facilities.
Policy 12. Urban density residential development usually at three or more
units to the acre should be encouraged in the urban growth area.
Policy 26. Availability of existing services shall be used as a criteria in
determining the location of higher intensity areas in the City.
CHM@@P@
urban design, inc.
SUMMERHILL PUD
Preliminary and Final Plan
Statement of Planning Objectives
Revised August 3, 1993
The proposed Summerhill PUD is an in -fill townhome project that achieves a number
of the City of Fort Collins' adopted Goals and Objectives, Land Use Policies, elements of the
Fort Collins Area Transportation Plan, and preliminary findings of the Neighborhood
Compatibility study.
Summerhill represents an opportunity to provide a greater mix of housing types in this
area than has been achieved in recent years. The proposed townhomes are intended to help
bridge the affordability gap between what is currently available, and what the market desires.
Summerhill makes an excellent in -fill project as it proposes moderate densities close to the
urban core, but on a scale small enough that it doesn't overwhelm the adjacent single family
areas.
Key design concepts employed to better define neighborhood character include:
Clustering the units around an internal private drive, and providing a larger,
usable open space area that is centrally located to all units to produce an
efficient, functionally organized and cohesive planned unit development. This
approach, combined with the public access on Underhill Drive and Westbridge
Drive integrate the site with the organizational scheme of the community and
neighborhood.
The residents of Summerhill will be buffered from Prospect Road and
Westbridge Drive by a heavy landscape buffer that includes trees, shrubs, and
privacy screens set back from the rear patios. The elements of the site plan are
designed to maximize the opportunity for privacy by the residents of .
Summerhill.
The elements of the site plan are arranged in a favorable relationship to the
existing topography, water courses, trees, exposure to sun and wind, and
views.
The Summerhill PUD Plans were prepared with a number of other planning goals and
concepts in mind; giving special attention to elements affecting neighborhood compatibility.
These concepts include:
I. Create a successful PUD that integrates with surrounding land uses.
Work within the framework of the existing community and public improvements
with the potential to share amenities, storm drainage improvements, and/or
other common elements.
M ENSITY CHART
Maximum
Criterion
Credit I
It Ail CNelling Units Are Within'
-
C:e:rt
a
20%
2000I~er an em,,N arccorwea regroor-xa voae,nQ Jen,«
b
10%
5W reerar on e.,mnq,arwvoo
I D
C
10 %
Co 0leerof Cne RnrQ Cf JCarwea'eq,ora, 1'CJOrg zen,«
d
20%
]5fx)'eeral ar e.nnngarrefetieare,gnpar^aOC; crt c=�^r..un•NCCn OrcCmr-;,r.ry •�G,�•AV1
e
100,10
I 'OOO reercra scnoa.meennq_n�e reawf«^enn V me cc-eu.wty eeucercr, % cr me irrne of C_,araaa.
20%
7COOteeraraRgiaem0�menraerr«
MQ
ARO !/l6it�e
W
9
s%
I t0o0reeroracn,gCore cenr«
h
20%
'•sptr'Foaccn,ns
i
20%
. ecenftoe fes Onmcl
• aaea wgfe nouroavn ccnrpuous ro aumng v0on oe.�.0a.rnr Goan nqy a em+ea m farwc
o:-cparrnecn.rofepowvoa gpvnos0to1a-.corgumr
I
30 %
'0 to 15%-;Or Cto,acn �ofe pOCOOV aounoav r .m 10 to 20% carr,7".
+S
10 20% _ ca 0raern nose acoenv oa rgpv noa 20 to 30%c0n,47 .
20 to 25%-con cfo, v as Ctc M ow.noav non to eo%Ccrnysyv.
25 to 20% ,as
`O
-col ore,« orooenv counocry 'al .s0105o% ccnng+„W.
3
k
It 1 CCn De a«rgnmcreo mar me pOreCi`..x reaK • ron.rMeWCpe energy ufeOQe bin« mrafrgfr me Coo'canon Of aR«Mlna ere,q,
for o-. rv5%���ccmm,rreo er«gy ccrfenglgn n•eae,ypf osvono nsar rolma,n,eau✓eawu,ti C_a a5%oanutrnwasomea
e0.Ctgn m erorQy use
i
l
czcw,area+: xn.s rorewv50 arm ncn aaa n me vo, ..
m I
Cc:cvgre me oercengge or me ao,sa mm ae ce•a+eo to recraalgno tse. err«,•2 crma 0srcenrape aa0orva
I (o •r
i
'Ime OOOIC.�rr�nm,ngpewr�+rp OerrrgnMfCrtvee oo«f faOCe malryeR me C.Nfmn,rnten reouveRrnn CCfCLgreme0«CMnJge
aC.•ea(Dwo me torOlCpVegOTMr aerea0e. owc Mnwe c1 c DT6
I
a
eOCROfinemr0CeM,OaR•enrCWQ01•f f0 Oe foenrOnneo(r.c qOO o,.ac nant, tcc1 wnp1 are feoufea w C,N Ccaa.
emer2%OOM1J:✓N«V iico p«CWea ng l,linvlflea
P
t part Ol me 1C1C' Ce„eganent ClgQer •f ra Ce 1D«+1 On ne•gnOaROOC:y+rle.Orla yyy,Cef vn,Cn be rotCTM�,fe,ealyreO wGN�;Ae.
w «a:%0 :or e,•e,v i too car c.o-wq urvr, Brea
f../ J
Q
:MgmroagCevo-oO hso O«cenrCpea�arOra rvn0«crCre, v^Q:YVR Ip q��r.CCRMrpn,„el f#+,M mat
etcenm ecsc
COrCMIage ClC OOr`1C u0 garr+CLrrVr101 ]0%.
130%
Z
n a COmmm w r R awq rgCs ra a.ye 00 a aeC ea 0e cennCQe a ti Og sumo« OrC.ewq� vR ra (VOO W ana fvae �' w a Ccaoea
^OULrq o oer+•ec ti rt+e CiN ar cmC_nvfs CCCLKne rtfs o0nva n'a+�.c
omwm
(�{�
froe'tf-t0hr-ef 'we'S v.R '
r.rr
�aiaiunm
^ no comesnas.^e cornorfeo oa aaea«maR_0:.
frtfe ewaaaaveormerry convrRrn nurpna Raaorga0,0ce.cax�u Rqv oe earoarcr rt+e raq+w+q
]% -For DreyerlRgamrtfganfg ourvoe,nrt.eres+ieQ en..aura•`S,ano fse. oeflrfe,C BCCrgrnc C.'q laclal lOC'pifaalrfe rO,n
5
C ew�ro <
J% - fv aeu+•Gn'ctrw mf<nref,..w aemveearr,+.mf me c-a-s�rcrme ou„ur.Qac+ace. ,.m��ecworq role urvn
]% - FavmigoJmm..re. orRv worfgpcgce marw,rocc�n G'Jnnnsonce.asf«wnrn rnavnaowrw+r,n on
COCtOafCie rtfpvw
rt a oaevt a of a ry reaueo oasrq n me mumue rang. pascn a�+cea ff+0eraatYfQ,.•m,n me a,vq• p n an e•ewlso ocn„rp
m�cv� oa an oc.flo,v fsae q me or.nav fm,cnue. c aorxss may ca earvo a faros
t
R - coraoaC/5%a maned me o0ralfq mafln,cva:
0% - Fp awaCjt77d%OrIM OOn,nQin OftR,CRfe.
'
]% - Gp ao..a^g 25av%or me convsg,namucve
u cccrnmlm,,f,c*%q-ice ,o aw,ce Cocrwec= ramarcnre e.r.•p;ur„ng fvflerr+,p.••e Ct.e.
TOTAL .�
Lk"
ACTIVITY Residential Uses I I H
DEFINITION:
All residential uses. Uses would include single family attached dwellings,
townhomes, duplexes, mobile homes, and multiple family dwellings; group
homes; boarding and rooming houses; fraternity and sorority houses; nursing
homes; public and private schools; public and non-profit quasi -public rec-
reational uses as a principal use;_,.uses,prpyiding meeting places and plaee's
for public assembly with incidental office space; and child care centers.
CRITERIA: Each of the following applicable criteria must be
answered "yes" and implemented within the develop-
ment.plan.
Yes No
1. On a gross acreage basis, is the
average residential density in the
project at least three (3) dwelling
units per acre (calculated for El
portion of the site only)?
2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN THE MINIMUM
PERCENTAGE POINTS AS CALCULATED ON
THE FOLLOWING "DENSITY CHART" FOR
THE PROPOSED DENSITY OF THE RESI-
DENTIAL PROJECT? THE REQUIRED EARNED / El
FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT �uj
SHALL BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING:
30-40 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 3-4 DWELLING.UNITS/ACRE;
40-50 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 4-5 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
50-60 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 5-6 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
60-70 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 6-7 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
70-80 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 7-8 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
80-90 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 8-9 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
90-100 PERCENTAGE POINTS = 9-10 DWELLING UNITS/ACRE;
100 OR MORE PERCENTAGE POINTS = 10 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS/ACRE.
(n i, Orvy - fr,5u W.�
ALL DEVELOPMENT; NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART
ALL CRITERIA
APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY
Is the criterion applicable?
Will the criterion
be sotistied?
��°�0.
Yes No
CRITERION
If no, please explain
Q,0`���`�\
NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY
1. Social Computability
2. Neighborhood Character
3. Land Use Conflicts
4. Adverse Traffic Impact
PLANS AND POLICIES
PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY
6. Street Capacity
7. Utility Capacity
8. Design Standards
9. Emergency Access
Q. Security Lighting
11. Water Hazards
w RESOURCE PROTECTION I
12. Soils & Slope Hazard
13, Significant Vegetation
t/
14. Wildlife Habitat
15. Historical Landmark
16. Mineral Deposit
17. Eco-Sensitive Areas
18. Agricultural Lands
ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS
19. Air Quality
20. Water Quality
21. Noise
22. Glare & Heat
23. Vibrations
24. Exterior Lighting
25. Sewages & Wasies
SITE DESIGN
26. Community Organization
q✓
27. Site Organization
28. Natural Features
29. Energy Conservation
30. Shadows
I/
31. Solar Access
32. Privacy
t/
33. Open Space Arrangement
34. Building Height
35. Vehicular Movement
36. Vehicular Design
V
37. Parking
t/
38. Active Recreational Areas
,/
39. Private Outdoor Areas
40. Peaestrion Convenience
41. Pecestrion Conflicts
d
42. LcnascapingiOpen Areas
43. LonascopingrBuildings
I/
44. LandscopingrScreening
✓
45. Puolic Access
46. Sicns
SCHOOL PROJECTIONS
PROPOSAL: SUMMERHILL PUD
DESCRIPTION: 62 multi -family units on 6.11 acres
DENSITY: 10.15 du/acre
General Population
62 (units) x 3.2 (persons/unit) = 198.4
School Age Population
Elementary - 62 (units) x .120
Junior High - 62 (units) x .055
(pupils/unit) = 7.44
(pupils/unit) = 3.41
Senior High - 62 (units) x .50 (pupils/unit) = 3.1
Design
Affected Schools
Ca aci
Enrollment
Moore Elementary
546
485
Blevins Junior High
900
682
Poudre Senior High
1235
1009
SUMMERHILL PUD
PRELIMINARY AND
LAND USE BREAKDOWN
July 6, 1993
Area
Gross
265,980 sq. ft.
6.11 acres
Net
230,240 sq. ft.
5.29 acres
Dwelling Units
2 Bedroom Units
62
Other
0
Total Units
62
Density
Gross
10.15 du/sc
Net
11.72 du/ac
Coverage
Buildings
49,600 sq. ft.
18.65 % • (Garages & carports
included in building
coverage)
Street R.O.W.
35,740 sq. ft.
13.44 %
Parking & Drives
56,600 sq. ft.
21.28 %
Open Space:
Private
0 sq. ft.
0 %
Common
124,040 sq. ft.
46.64 %
Total Open Space
124,040 sq. ft.
46.64 %
Floor Area
Residential
79,500 sq. ft.
Parking Provided
Garage
62 spaces
1.00 / unit
Other
62 spaces
Total Vehicles
124 spaces
2.00 / unit
*Note:
Garages and / or driveways will
accommodate Handicapped,
Motorcycle, and Bike parking
Max. Building Height
36 ft.
-----------------------------------
FRONT=LEvATION
I rFT Alpr PI PYATION
RlQwTS[QFFLrVATIQN
r----9 --
- - -
-----------------------------
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NORM
,�,
�� •
��33uic
{� - I: I
�����MMMM�
-
�
uiam=,ie�.�ri�� �.' .;•• ;
o.!�a?:�ll,
r
p
#SYMBOL
a#
# #
)
#
# #
PLAMFM MOIIG
SUMMERHILL PUD
vmm ,n. mo
a� .. 7�3
o
- _
Z SINGLE FAMILY
y
WEST PROSPECT ROAD
.' w �
�� -�..� fie. , �1�1, �r�1F�l♦\�� 1�1 l�,,w�i�. �
�# t� ` � !I � � •-tom ,.acing II,���� � -
wl'� T �— ���iii'I e��t�1♦II�!' 1111114mij"
# `"�.•• - Y') �, 1�IVAN,
!IF!�aii �!��Illliyl��Va.�II ►71,
SONOR6N VIEW
ESTATE9'- I-, BRIM pgi4v
Me
y
J.
7 VIRMP
u.Can tl.algn, Inc.
nn s.♦ (JW0-wry
SUMMERHILL PUD
G°PG3CMN(Imfi17
� "r°
.. o
uawa vmruunaaJ-�--J
r Si0M5o_
L
V V
9 ., l - 3
- a` 0 had P c
0
rchardEn
PI Broadvie l` \
or n Orchard PI. c PL m �Bayst
o rn
_ L: m <
Plu St Y
w. rn
k' � st. w.
J
E Q�
�
McAII ste
r_
J
~ 3
Ct. W.
El iza bath
St.
c
o
Dr,
o
oPOIqr
J
o�tv�r�
a
o
E
u
�
Lr_sdale
v,Tamoraco
�.
o
6 90
��
o�E
v
c
mCr
U
3
o
Ct
Ct
c
Dr
nr0btr a
a v
a.. � o r1
v 0-Apple
r gag o >
S Cl arview Pie W
� Dr. Sk n > > u _
intrid PI. L_ CD v a i. wood Q a vn8o C:
j t7 D u O Dr ._
BradbwY _ = o SPrnghcld C) 5 r'n �c r
° C t' 1L Q = = t b u 3 0
1 O p o
o � W Lake St. E to
o d m W .�
s ur Dr c
o Ct t - c Fair c
Knot Ct Ever .green �r ^TCt YW. LakecWEST PROSPECT ROAD�� W L L ° m St
' Ln _
me Oeaolk o O o77
O �' c„i a •-� coverMl Q..Coopers Cn,
D = h o
horlesipn pr CedorWvod Dc Lo PL. '
1 l 40rth Rd. v
\Oo� o � � j� Q a Vill
Df.
Suffolk
Promenade_
/
, p
r W. -Stuart
No\�ro9bp°rPe
Shr shire i�
4f
KingSb
---"
°orb
3
Ryeland Ave.
On
09h
c
C-'
Ed 9 eat
0 o
Dorset c;s g
Ct /�
om�a
W'
Dr_
Stuart St.
e �.
Q
�'^
c
a
H
Ct
$U '4qa
6 0
Ct o
W, 4ve
31 orl
n
2
Go
Ll.
q
S
o
o` o
P
�a
San
Freedo n.
(ya�el
e G.. .y
C1 c
`a
r
N
J
m
❑ -
c
_
v Glenwood Dr,
C�
q r.
Gt ��,... Clh
Eu
o
�Cof
=
ax
13 J
m
c
o
1
erino
Siv
cf. old
Clr.
pr v�
�
Cf.
bn 'n
Pon a
Cl.
Oi
L.
V
e
Cl desdole ' Gcl9r
�' d °
��
u
Wl^
01
p
ITEM: SUMMERHILL PUD - P 46-
North
NUMBER: 41=93
Summerhill P.U.D. - Preliminary, #41-93
August 30, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 4
side, both being local public streets. The interior streets will be
privately owned and maintained by the Summerhill Homeowner's
Association.
RECOMMENDATION:
This request earns 93.5% on the Residential Uses Density Point
Chart and meets the applicable All Development Criteria of the Land
Development Guidance System. Staff considers this request to be
compatible with the land uses in thesurrounding area. Therefore,
staff is recommending approval of the Summerhill P.U.D.,
Preliminary - #41-93.
Summerhill P.U.D. - Preliminary, #41-93
August 30, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 3
3. Design:
Architecture:
There are 16 buildings, 14 4-plexes and 2 6-plexes, with a total
of 68 dwelling units. The buildings will not exceed 36' in height.
Each unit has a built-in one car garage with a driveway 17' to 201
in length. The exterior materials will be masonite hardboard siding
and asphalt shingle roofing.
Landscaping:
The project will provide a mix of deciduous, evergreen, and
ornamental trees. There will be street trees throughout the site
and the West Prospect Road frontage will be extensively planted
with shade, ornamental, and evergreen trees to provide a good
buffer to the street and single family residential neighborhood to
the north.
Parking:
All 68 dwelling units will have 3 bedrooms. City Code requires 2
parking spaces per 3-bedroom unit or, in this case, 136 parking
spaces. There will be 140 parking spaces provided with this
development; one per unit in a garage, totalling 68, and 72 off-
street spaces in numerous locations throughout the development. The
parking is considered to be adequate for this request.
4. Neighborhood Compatibility:
A neighborhood information meeting was held on June 30, 1993.
Although an extensive affected property owners notification mailing
was done there were only 6 participants (in addition to the
developer and his representatives) present at the meeting. The
minutes of the meeting are attached. The concerns were centered on
the effects of this development on an existing single family
residence located at the southeast corner, between Summerhill and
the Bridges P.U.D.'s, additional traffic in the area generated by
this project, potential access into the City's natural area to the
south, and type & height of street lighting proposed in the
project.
Staff considers this request to be compatible with the land uses in
the surrounding area.
5. Transportation:
The development will be accessed from West Prospect Road by
Westbridge Drive on the east side and Underhill Drive on the west
Summerhill P.U.D. - Preliminary, #41-93
August 30, 1993 P & Z Meeting
Page 2
COMMENTS:
1. Background•
The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows:
N: RL, existing single family residential (Fairview West)
S: RP, existing City -owned natural areas
E: RP, existing single family and multi -family residential (one.
single family residence and The Bridges P.U.D.)
W: RL, existing single family residential (Sonoran View Estates)
The Underhill P.U.D. received preliminary approval from City
Council in January, 1982 for 220 multi -family dwelling units and
one single family residence on 20 acres.
The Underhill P.U.D., Phase One received final approval from the
Planning and Zoning Board in April, 1982 for 47 multi -family
dwelling units on 4.1 acres.
2. Land Use•
This is a request for preliminary approval of 68 multi -family
residential dwelling units on 7.36 acres. It has been evaluated
against the Residential Uses Density Point Chart and the applicable
All Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System
and scores 93.5% on the point chart, earning credit for: a) all
dwelling units being within 650' of an existing transit stop, b)
all dwelling units being within 3,500' of an existing neighborhood
and community park (Avery, Rolland Moore), c) all dwelling units
being within 3,000' of a major employment center (Colorado State
University), d) a portion of the development being devoted to
recreational uses (active open space), and e) a portion of the
required on -site parking being within the buildings. The point
chart supports the proposed density for this development.
This development proposal replats portions of the previously
approved Underhill P.U.D., including all of the property in the
area bounded by West Prospect Road to the north, Westbridge Drive
to the east, Underhill Drive to the west, and the New Mercer Canal
to the south. Additionally, a 6-plex building envelope at the
southwest portion of the property, south and west of the cul-de-sac
on Underhill Drive and north of the New Mercer Canal, is part of
this request.
ITEM NO. 16
MEETING DATE 8/30/93
STAFF Steve Olt
-
PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD
-- -
STAFF REPORT
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
OWNER:
Summerhill P.U.D., Preliminary - #41-93
Mel Price
c/o Cityscape
3555 Stanford
Fort Collins,
Urban Design
Road, #105
CO. 80525
Mel Price
2400 Vajobi Court
Fort Collins, CO. 80526
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for preliminary approval for 68 multi -family
residential dwelling units on 7.36 acres located south of West
Prospect Road at Underhill Drive and Westbridge Drive. The property
is in the RP, Planned Residential Zoning District.
RECOMMENDATION: Approval
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This is a request for preliminary approval for 68 multi -family
residential dwelling units on 7.36 acres. It earns 93.5% on the
Residential Uses Density Point Chart and meets the applicable All
Development Criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. The
buildings will be 4- and 6-plexes, maximum of 36' in height, with
one parking garage per unit. This request replats a portion of the
Underhill P.U.D. that was approved in 1982. The project will
provide a mix of deciduous, evergreen, and ornamental trees. There
will be street trees throughout the site and the West Prospect Road
frontage will be extensively planted with shade, ornamental, and
evergreen trees to provide a good buffer to the street and single
family residential neighborhood to the north. The interior streets
will be privately owned and maintained by the Summerhill
Homeowner's Association. Staff considers this request to be
compatible with the land uses in the surrounding area.
COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-6750
PLANNING DEPARTMENT